Louisiana: The State We're In; 775

For years ago, with the support of then-governor train in the state's largest business lobby, the legislature approved an incentive pay plan for teachers. Now the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry President Ed Stymel is accusing teachers of sabotaging the controversial program and once lawmakers to abolish it. Good evening, I'm Ken Johnson.

And I'm Robin Eckings. Thanks for joining us for Monday's edition of Louisiana, the state we're in. Robin angry lawmakers and an even angrier governor Edwin Edwards warn today that the state will not help bail out the financially strapped world's fair, unless bank officials and fair officials agree to a plan hammered out last week by the governor. At first, there didn't seem to be any serious problems. Some legislators of course were reluctant to guarantee another $15 million in loans, but most said they would go along with the plan faced with the possibility of the fair shutting down. Today in a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Governor Edwards went to bat for the fair, only to be thrown a curve at the last minute. Fair President Peter Spurney told lawmakers that some bankers wanted to change the terms of the deal worked out by Edwards. That's when the fireworks began. We'll have more on today's top story in just a minute, but first look at another issue that's stirring up even bigger controversy around the halls of the state capital. Ken last Friday, the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, which has steadfastly supported and defended the PIPs program for teachers from its beginning, didn't about face

and urged lawmakers to scrap the $76 million program and use the money to provide teacher pay raises. While that position drew the wrath of teachers who claim business leaders have abandoned them, rather than pay higher corporate franchise taxes, which is the keystone of Governor Edwards' pay raise plan for teachers. Tomorrow, that plan could come up for a vote again in the House. Will it pass this time? Will the controversial PIPs program figure in the debate? Tonight's some answers. Joining us in our studio tonight, Ed Stymel, President of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, and Corel Appling, President of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. Robert, as we said earlier, Governor Edwards appeared before a Senate committee today, trying to drum up support for a plan to once again bail out the troubled world's fair. No one really liked the idea, but faced with the threat of the fair shutting down without more money. Lawmakers were expected to have their say, don't come back again, and this is the last time. And then rubber stamp the governor's plan, but that was before the plan was changed. Situation, as I do, but I think we're in a position where we have little alternative, but

to proceed with the passage of legislation which would authorize the state to guarantee the proposed $15 million loan. It is my understanding, and if it is not developed this way, then I would want to second look at it, that as part of our condition to the guarantee that the finances of the operation would be turned over to an independent audit infirm, that would be charged with the responsibility of collecting the fairs' receipts and dispersing in accordance with some priority, payment of accrued trade bills, utility bills, et cetera. The Division of Administration will have the authority and the responsibility to check off in writing the payment of the use of these $15 million funds. And as far as I know to the extent that we can safeguard the state's interests we have done so. Now those safeguards were detailed in a plan hammered out last week by Governor Edwards, but apparently not everyone was happy with the plan. Today, fair president Peter Spurney said some bankers want to change the deal and get

their money back first. Mr. Chairman, allow me to make a statement that I'm retrenching. The deal has been changed without my knowledge. My position at this time, unless I change, my mind has changed by others, is that the money is to be spent $5 million by the export to make itself current with its trade obligations, 10 million is go to the contractors. Any other change I do not embrace, and I want to go back to the original proposal which I worked out, or maybe I made the proposal to the banks and to the contractors. And that is on that basis, then everybody shares one-third, one-third, and one-third in the generated funds over and above expenditures. If they're not in a position to follow that procedure, I would prefer not to support the measure because I don't think that we should have the state guarantee a loan which is going to pay the banks in part and leave us in jeopardy with the trade bills because we then are setting the stage to have another crisis two weeks from now, and I'm just

about crisis down. I would say, unless all parties are willing to work, that none of us work. Why should the state and the people of Louisiana cough up the money so that some bank and stuck its neck out can get paid? Later in the day, the Senate Finance Committee, after Governor Edwards reconsidered his position, approved the loan guarantee. Edwards told us he still has reservations about the plan, but he wants to talk to all of the parties involved. Then if he's still not satisfied, he said, the bill can still be killed on the Senate floor. While that battle is going on, Governor Edwards is moving on to another front, the issue of teacher pay raises. Edwards has held meetings with several legislators who voted against his pay raise plan last time, but might be convinced to change their vote next time, and that could come as earliest tomorrow. Even floor leaders say they may call for a second vote on the proposed increase in corporate franchise taxes needed to fund pay raises for teachers and school employees. Meanwhile state employees are continuing to hold a series of rallies and hopes they will

be forgotten by the legislature. Right now there are no plans to give them a pay raise, even though they haven't had one in three years the same as teachers. Governor Edwards says he sympathizes with the problems the state workers, but right now his top priority is finding enough money to take care of teachers. Another hot issue is still facing the legislature, one that is expected to come up again this week, is a bill that would scrap many of the reforms made last year in Louisiana's workers' compensation law. Labor claims those changes have hurt working people. It's a very merit towards piece of legislation and it's quite a far-reaching thinking to really the best interests of not only the workers but the state as a whole, as well as the employers, even though they may not understand that. Mr. Stymers said he doesn't understand the reason that we are supporting the bill, but of course he doesn't understand the great deal anyway, about a lot of things. That's not unusual for him. The governor has said that he would make some calls to get support of this bill. Do you think that is going to make the difference in getting the bill passed?

Well certainly I would think that the governor's influence in the Senate in the House is still at a very high level and if that's what he said then I'm certainly pleased to hear that because I know that he stands for Square behind the bill. Governor Edwards of course is always an extremely worthy advocate and adversary and I really am concerned about his intervention in this bill, but I'm sure he doesn't understand it. We've spoken to the governor about the bill and his prime objective is to eliminate this office of the workers' condominium. I think he's wrong about that, but I am certainly concerned about his intervention. If the governor would look at the bill and see what the bill does, he would see that he, that bill, as it's written, would increase workers' compensation insurance costs over 35 percent and that's just my conservative estimation. I'm sure when we put the patent pencil to it on the final version of the bill, it would be substantially more than that. There are also varying opinions concerning what to do about child care centers here

in Louisiana. The Senate has approved one bill that would require the mandatory licensing of all such centers, but the House has approved another bill calling for voluntary licensing, neither side appears willing to budge. Of course, daycare centers in our state already have to comply with five different levels of regulation. This would add a sixth level, which I think is not necessary, as far as what tactics we'll use on the House floor, that's yet to be determined. We're trying to work with compromise with the supporters of mandatory licensing and I'm optimistic that there's some chance we can do that. What kind of a compromise are you thinking of? No, compromise is always involved, given take on both sides, so we'd have to give some basic things and that have to give some things, but those things are being negotiated and whether they'll work out, I just don't know. Would it be similar to the amendment that was added on the House floor to the House bill? Well it wouldn't be that way because they didn't like that at all, that was a real attempt at a compromise, but the problem is we already have so many regulations on the unlicensed daycare centers that it's hard to know what else to give other than everything they want.

And perhaps there's some middle ground and we're trying to. This session, the controversy over licensing childcare centers, along with most other major issues, has been nearly overshadowed by the search for pay raise money. Tomorrow a vote in the House may provide some answers for teachers and public school employees. While they have been lobbying hard to get legislators to approve an increase in the state's corporate franchise tax, the cornerstone of the governor's plan to fund their raises, business has been pushing just as hard for defeat of the measure. Last week, the head of the state's largest business lobby came up with a teacher pay raise plan of his own. It would mean an end to a program for teachers he once enthusiastically backed. But apparently, as far as Louisiana Association of Business and Industry President Ed Stymel is concerned, teachers don't seem to want or deserve it. Professional improvement program for teachers and school administrators began four years ago as an incentive program to encourage educators to improve their skills and get better pay. This main supporters were then Governor Dave Trine and a Louisiana Association of Business and Industry who maintained only those who took the initiative to learn more about their

profession should be rewarded with higher salaries. The program, also known as PIPs, soon came under fire from teachers, legislators, and then former Governor Edwin Edwards who charged, among other things, that many of the courses offered were meaningless and a waste of the teacher's time and the state's money. This session, the administration is backing a bill to phase out the PIPs program in five years and replace it with a different incentive pay plan. Late last week, the move to eliminate PIPs got some extra support from an unexpected source. Louisiana Association of Business and Industry President Ed Stymel angrily proposed that PIPs be eliminated completely and the $76 million that would be saved be used for pay raises for teachers that so far the legislature has been unable to fund. For the reason that so many people have become critics of it and there have been some programs that have been developed by some people who only had a buck in mind and some people have taken the courses with only a buck in mind.

It's begun, laughed at, criticized by Governor Edwards, criticized by a number of led to slave cars and really defended by almost no one but us and Dave Trine, so we just got tired of defending it. Besides, every effort has been made now to give the teachers a pay raise and nobody seems to be able to find a way to do it and this $76 million will give a pay raise to all instructional personnel and give them a 10% pay raise with a retirement benefit. Teachers who have criticized business leaders this session for opposing a key part of the Governor's plan for a pay raise are rejecting the suggestion. It's ludicrous. I can't understand how big business might lobby could not understand what they would really be doing. They say, we're going to give you a raise and they say, on the other hand, we're going to go and we're going to steal that raise, we're going to steal it really from you and give it back to you. That's ludicrous. You're taking money from people who've worked hard to earn that money and it's really supposed to be theirs at the end of the five years and so they're saying, hey, look, we're going to give you a raise, we're going to go over here and we're going to take it away

from you, money that you've already earned and we're going to give it back to you. What kind of reason is that? Governor Edwards says at one point he considered eliminating pips to pay for raises but decided against it. Well, it's totally unacceptable, both legally as well as politically and legally speaking the pips program is a program which Mr. Steinle was the early advocate and supporter of and now I primarily acknowledge this as I said when that thing passed four years ago that it was a terrible mistake. But legally speaking, those who are in the pips program cannot be deprived of the monuments or the benefits from it and if we did that, we would set ourselves up for lawsuit number one, number two, it's hardly fair to say to those in the pips program that they're going to take a reduction in order for others who are not in the program to get some small raise. It's just not a practical solution, although we looked at it. I think the teachers themselves are one of the biggest reasons for the fate of the program. Some of them were only interested in the money, many of them were interested really in upward development but many of them were not and the most vocal apparently were the ones

who were only interested in the money and in criticizing anything that anybody else had to offer to improve education. So we got tired defending. We think it's time for them to go on the defense. Will teachers get a pay raise this year and is the elimination of the controversial pips program a good way to fund it? Tonight we'll try and come up with some answers. Joining us in our studio are Ed Steinle, president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and Corel Appling, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. Mr. Steinle, considering the fact that the governor has said there could be some legal problems with just eliminating pips and that you would be taking some money from teachers to give back to teachers in the form of raises, is the suggestion to eliminate pips a realistic and a good solution to the pay raise problem? I don't know whether it's a good answer to it or not. As far as a legal problem, I don't think there's a legal problem. I think there is an ethical problem. I don't never have question that, but there is no legal contract that it never has been. You cannot buy in the legislature a future legislature for anything, though that will

take that is a particular problem. Quite frankly, we're not the ones who wanted to get rid of pips. Governor Edwards wanted to get rid of it. The LFT never wanted it to start. The LAE never wanted it to start. Almost everybody has fought the thing from day one and they still laugh about it when it was mentioned the other day in the legislature. Our group of teachers laughed at it and so it's the ridicule that has been heaped upon it because perhaps 10 percent of the teachers have constituted it and because perhaps 10 percent of the programs have been bad. The result is that everybody is latching on to these things and saying that the program is no good and if everybody keeps saying it's no good, we say, well, we can't be the only people to defend it for that reason. We simply say, well, let's just jump the thing then and let's shift the money to teachers because the governor never could make it first priority and he's budget. $900 million in taxes and nobody makes it first priority. Two more tax efforts and nobody makes it first priority and so they keep using the teachers and teachers who are willing to be used.

They want us to be the scapegoat because they're not willing to attack Governor Edwards. What about the teachers who, though, have signed up in good faith for the pips program for a five-year program and would have the program just pulled out from underneath them? Well, I really feel sorry for them and I don't think it's going to be pulled out. Be very frank about it. I really don't think it's going to be pulled out, but I think it's about time that their leadership start defending the program that the teachers claim that they want. The program that we think has been a good program, certainly the objectives are very good and I think most of the program offerings have been good and I think most of the teachers who took them, took them in good faith and still do so and not just for the monetary value but that voice never seems to get hurt. We only hear the criticism and we're tired of defending a program that everybody wants to get rid of. Resappling. What do you think of the program? Are you prepared at this time to defend it? Yes, I'm prepared at this time to defend the program. I have heard the statements that Mr. Stymal has made. In the beginning, it is true that we did not go on record as being in favor of pips because teachers viewed pips as being a very demeaning insulting program.

It was the only way that they could survive economically was to go into the program so the teachers did finally accept PIP as a new program that they could do to get supplemental pay or overtime pay as I more prefer to indicate and now the teachers have signed a five-year contract and are in pips four or five years, they've gotten used to having this increment on their pay and so they naturally have used it as part of their bargaining and buying power at home. I can't agree that it's not a legal problem. I have questions several couple of judges and some attorneys to give me an illegal opinion on it and I do believe what they have come up with is that the way the bill reads is that the teachers will never get less than the amount they're getting at the end of their five-year period and so that's one of the problems that we're facing right now. What about Mr. Stymal's contention that 10% of the teachers who are now in the program have prostituted the program? Obviously there have been abuses but is it as a widespread as some people believe? I definitely feel as though he's very wrong and I made the statement that when you have

any kind of program you will not have 100% of the program being totally affected. I have personally taught workshops and college courses for PIPs and I will say that there's always one or two people in the course that may not get as much from it as you would like to see. The teachers have received much information and they can always take something back in the classroom to use. Mr. Stymal, you made the accusation and in the past you have defended the program. Now you find yourself attacking it. Give us some for examples. No, we still think the program is a good program. I said 10% perhaps 10% of the teachers have taken it for just personal gain for no other. That means that 90% of the teachers probably took it for good reason, who wanted to advance themselves, knowledge-wise, and to keep up and simply to fill voids that they didn't have filled as they went through college the first trip. I think there are so many good things about the program basically that I hate to see the things scrap, but when so many people have simply said that it's no good and laugh

at it, we say, well, do you have caused it to fall into disrepute? We didn't do that. We have always defended it. We have been alone defending it, really. No one goes out really to defend that program, but awesome. We've done it for four years and we've really gotten a little tired. Josh Scott, nobody jumped on Josh Scott the other day. We had a bill and almost passed the bill to take this money and divert it to the teacher. I see nobody claiming Josh Scott's a prostitute, a bad guy, and all that stuff. But we did it. Same thing that Josh Scott did it, so we have become the enemies of education. We've been the greatest defenders of public education in this state outside of the education establishment itself and nobody can question that. Now because a program that they caused to fall into disrepute, we say, well, we're going to quit defending it. Now we're bad. Fine. I hope they can defend it and make the thing work. Mr. Steinle, your recommendation that the program be scrapped did come after the corporate franchise tax vote in the House and some have speculated that it was an expression of frustration

and anger over the battling that went on with teachers pushing for the tax business pushing against the tax and that you, that was an explosion of your anger against what went on in the House with the lobbying back and forth. Scientifically, no anger, I thoroughly enjoyed writing that release. I wrote it myself, if I blame nobody for it. It took me no time to write it because we've been building up to this for a long time. We're tired of people criticizing a program that would basically sound and we just simply finally said to hell with it, $900 million of taxes that train and Edwards have advanced and the teachers were supposed to have had first priority, did they get it? Why don't they talk to Governor Trine, why don't they talk to Governor Edwards as the people who did not make them first priority? Why not in the cuts? We've got enough cuts to 100 billion dollars in cuts, we'll take care of all the teachers, all of the instructional personnel, plus retirement, but where are the cuts? Instead of cuts, they added to the budget, where did the teachers end up?

In last place again, the teachers have been put in last place that have been used and used and used and used and they're continuing to be used and they're willing to be used. Is big business really the bad guy here or have you been placed low on the priority totem pole? Number one, I think we were not top priority in the state. That's somebody else's erroneous idea. We were a priority as in many other things, but we've never been top priority. I think banking was evidently the top priority because it's sailed through and as far as using the teachers, I do believe the teachers are being used and there's nothing really that the teachers can do about this right now. We're not in a position to create our own tax package, nor are we in a position to get the votes out unless we have the backing of the governor or unless we would have the backing of lobby behind us for whatever tax package we went after. So that's where we're tied. But you are in the position to go out, to walk out on strike if possible. Do you feel that that is a very real possibility if you don't get some kind of relief

this year? Yes, it is a possibility, but of course it's not something that we can make plans to do right now until we know what the deaf and an outcome is of this session or perhaps even a special session that we hear alluded to. I would like to say to Mr. Steinwell that I do not feel that we have at any time prostituted the PIPS program. I do believe that there is not a 10% abuse of this program and definitely teachers have benefited by the program. What has happened is that representatives like Mr. Scott, as well as you, as well as Governor Edwards, need to find funds and these funds can be used if they want to be taken from PIPS. So that's just another alternative that they've gone after. Where can we get money? So this happens to be an area that they can use. So that's why they're attacking this and we certainly are not in favor of Mr. Scott's plan. So by any way and I did tell him that and I will, I have to meet him again this afternoon to reiterate that with him. By the same token it often seems that when the PIPS program came up, teachers were not happy with it. They were opposed to it and there's talk about this career ladder commission.

There's hesitation among the teachers. They're afraid it's going to be a merit pay system. There's already some rumblings about that. You begin to wonder what teachers could accept in terms of an incentive improvement program. All right. We have spoken about that and in the PIPS program, it was the career ladder as we're looking at it right now and hopefully will be an optional thing. The teachers will be able to volunteer to go into the career ladder or they may stay in whatever salary schedule we presently have with the intention that their PIP increment would be included. If they so choose to go into career ladder, the salary that's been advocated for the career ladder would be above and above whatever the regular schedule including the PIP increment would be. So therefore they would maintain that salary's place of being always above whatever their PIP increment is when they chose to go into career ladder. Mr. Stymel, no one wants to pay more taxes, not businessmen, not industry leaders, not farmers, not the man on the street. But at the same time, how can you say that we're developing an anti-business climate in

the state and how can you really defend that by adding to the corporate franchise tax if it was raised in order to help teachers? Well, there have simply before Governor Treen and Governor Edwards tax raises of 900 million. Louisiana ranked number one among the nine Sunbelt States of the South, number one in per capita state taxes, number one in per capita state and local taxes, number one in state expenditures, number one in state and local expenditures, number one in the proportion of state employees per 10,000 population. Now that was before the $900 million which increased taxes by 22%. Now you say it does not affect business climate, well then I think you don't know what you're talking about. Not suggestion that you say that. But whoever says that just doesn't know what he's talking about because taxes do become one of the factors in business location. It's not the prime factor, labor, market, transportation and capital, all of these things are prime factors.

Right and labor you ticked off first and have it, you said in the past you have to have educable people and they have to have traits and they have to have qualities and they have to have educational backgrounds. Absolutely. You have supported education programs in the past. So why not go one more step and back this teacher pay raise? Because pouring more money into this thing ain't gonna get it. That's the problem. Mr. Steinwell, miss Eppling, we'd like to thank both of you for being with us tonight. It will be interesting to see what the legislature does about teacher pay raises. And Robert, we might find out as early as tomorrow. That's right, can the governor's indicated he would like to have another vote on that issue tomorrow in the house and of course we'll have all the details. Until then, I'm Robin Eckings. And I'm Ken Johnson. Thanks for joining us. Good night. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.